Compelling Evidence of Ebola Fraud in the United States. Plasma Transfusion

This article discusses compelling—and very nearly conclusive—evidence of Ebola fraud in the United States. The evidence we now have indicates, by force of deductive logic, that it cannot possibly be true that Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol were both incompatible with Thomas Eric Duncan for plasma transfusion purposes.

That is, what follows shows that the U.S Government/MSM’s plasma transfusion stories pertaining to Brantly and Writebol are necessarily false, since if they were true, either Brantly or Writebol (but not both) would have been compatible with Duncan for purposes of plasma transfusion—but we are told that neither was.

Click here to see that we are told that Writebol was not compatible with Duncan for plasma transfusion purposes—or with any of the other U.S. Ebola patients either (at least including Sacra and Mukpo and probably Pham as well) either. Click here to see that we are told that Brantly was not compatible with Duncan for plasma transfusion purposes either.

Please note with respect to the subsequent analysis that donor/recipient compatibility for purposes of plasma transfusion is not the same as donor/recipient compatibility from the standpoint of whole blood compatibility. Thus, as ABC “News” notes, for example: “Though blood type O is considered the universal donor for whole blood, type AB is the universal donor for plasma, according to the Red Cross.”

Here is a table specifying blood type donor/recipient compatibility for the purpose of plasma transfusion, which is the sort of transfusion Brantly and Writebol (having supposedly donated to the NYC doctor Craig Spencer) are said to have been involved in:

Now consider that Brantly is said to have matched Sacra, Mukpo, and Pham but not Duncan.

Writebol is said to have matched none of the four. As the chart shows, Writebol cannot have been AB, because AB is a universal donor for plasma purposes and so if she were AB, she would have matched everyone.

But, Writebol cannot be O either, and that this is so follows from her own words, which appear in an October 2 interview she did with Science Insider:

“Q: Did you have a blood transfusion?

N.W.: I did. I had blood transfusions in Liberia and Emory. Neither was convalescent serum, though. There wasn’t a match.”

As the above chart shows, however, if Writebol’s blood type for plasma transfusion purposes were O, she would have matched any plasma donor blood type. Therefore, she is not an O.

And in case you are hesitating due to the supposition that “convalescent serum” and “plasma” refer to different things in the present context, consider that a plasma-type blood transfusion is exactly what Sacra, Mukpo, and Pham were said (over and over again) to have received from Brantly, and that, via the Washington Post:

“Injecting the blood of a patient such as Brantly, who has recovered from Ebola and developed certain antibodies, is a decades-old but promising method of treatment that, academics and health officials agree, could be one of the best means to fight Ebola. Called a convalescent serum, it might also save Pham, an alum of Texas Christian University.

“Convalescent serum is high on our list of potential therapies and has been used in other outbreaks,” a WHO spokesman told Science magazine in August. “There is a long history of its use, so lots of experience of what needs to be done, what norms and standards need to be met.”

Just in case you still need more convincing on this point, this language from another Washington Post article will very likely remove any residual doubt:

“The Nebraska hospital treating Ebola patient Ashoka Mukpo said that he is scheduled on Wednesday to receive the same convalescent serum from the same donor – Ebola survivor Kent Brantly – as American doctor Rick Sacra received several weeks ago.

Mukpo, a freelance cameraman who was diagnosed with Ebola while working for the network in Liberia, will receive some of Brantly’s blood as part of his treatment against the virus at the Nebraska Medical Center.

In September, Brantly, an American doctor, donated some of his plasma to Sacra, who was also treated at the Nebraska Medical Center.”

So Writebol is neither AB nor O. Therefore, she is either A or B. Brantly, we are told, is A. Writebol’s type cannot also be A, since Brantly, we are told, miraculously matched Sacra, Mukpo and Pham while Writebol, we are told, did not. We are left with B for Writebol. But Duncan’s family has said that Duncan was also B—and so Writebol should have matched Duncan, but we are told she did not.

The foregoing provides compelling reasons for concluding that the Government/MSM Axis’ plasma transfusion narratives are fraudulent. Obviously, this raises questions as whether the entirety of the U.S. Ebola narrative as presented by Government and the MSM is fraudulent.

As noted at the outset, we now have another plasma transfusion narrative in regard to Writebol and the New York City doctor Craig Spencer. Might this plasma transfusion narrative be fraudulent as well, and might, therefore, the NYC “Ebola” case as well as the other United States cases amount to nothing more than mass-mediated fraud?

Dr. Jason Kissner is Associate Professor of Criminology at California State University. Dr. Kissner’s research on gangs and self-control has appeared in academic journals. His current empirical research interests include active shootings. You can reach him at crimprof2010[at]hotmail.com

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the
copyright owner.